politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's really quite shocking how biased he was being. To paraphrase:
Clarence: The honor of these prosecutors is being impugned. Why weren't these poor prosecutors given a chance to explain?
Defender: They were. We got a sworn statement from one and the other was interviewed by independent counsel.
Clarence: Okay, but an interview with these two seems central to this case so they could explain themselves.
Defender: Um... They did get a chance to explain themselves. It's right there in the brief...
Clarence: Shouldn't these two prosecutors, whose reputations are being impugned, get an opportunity to explain? They claim that they never had an opportunity to explain in depth.
Defender: Dude, the state attorney general commissioned a probe that interviewed both prosecutors. Just look at the fucking brief in front of you.
Clarence: Why don't we have materials from the prosecutors other than in an amicus brief?
Defender: Just look at the papers in front of you.
Clarence: What are we to do with the point that these poor, maligned prosecutors have been frozen out of this process.
Defender: *points at the paperwork in front of Clarence's face* Defense would like to ask the court for permission to rub the justices nose in the evidence in front of him.
Sotomayor: Clarence, did you forget your meds or something?
Okay, so maybe it wasn't quite like that but everyone should read the article. I'm really not that far off. The whole thing is ridiculous.
That was surprisingly accurate.
So a Supreme Court Justice doesn't listen to the arguments being presented, doesn't read the evidence presented, and makes up his own argument that is disproven by both. The consequence for blatantly ignoring reality is...?
Beep beep! ~~RV~~ Motorhome time!
Oh my. That was truly wild to read. He works soo hard at being a cartoon villain.
Jesus. That was bad. Fucken Clarence Thomas, man. What a shit bag.